Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Blade_Runner Date: Dec 9, 2010 3:50pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Exploitation Films: The Beta!!

But by that sort of logic even all Vampire or Werewolf movies might be considered exploitation movies.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 9, 2010 5:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Exploitation Films: The Beta!!

Don' look at me. I asked for help, it was given me on a list with a plausible justification and so I added it. (see above, in re: some subgenres are just not my thing, thus I don't know much about them.) I'm also the one who plans on maintaining this list, as I'd like to see the IA Gnomes (like the QI Elves, only more mysterious and not buzzing in Stephen Fry's ear) add Exploitation as a collection withing Feature Films, like Silent, Comedy, Film Noir and Sci-Fi/Horror. For that to happen, there needs to be a minimum of 50 (that's the quote that has been given, anyways. How accurate it is, I don't really know. I wasn't around for that discussion, so I missed that thread entirely and am working off of another forum member's recollection. I'm willing to trust that person's memory, as I know him personally.). I have 65 in my listing. Many films on the list cross over into other genres and collections. That's just an inevitability, inherent in Exploitation Cinema.

The problem you're facing is that "exploitation" as a film concept is rather nebulous and loose. I'm also positive that some vampire and werewolf films can be considered to be exploitation films. There are two non-economic base points from which to fashion a working criteria. Only one or the other, and not necessarily both, seems to have to be present for a film to be classified as exploitation. One is fear-mongering. That is, capitalizing on generating fear, or fear already generated by other media (such as Hearst's newspaper empire...can you say Reefer Madness?), to make a quick buck. The other is simply capitalizing on a topic de jure for the same reason (cannibal films, sasquatchploitation, etc.). Regardless of which criteria a film falls under, there is still one economic aspect that all exploitations films end to fall under. Namely, making a quick, dirty and cheap flick to make a fast buck.

The "fad" base point introduces an element of periodicity. Vampire and werewolf films are quite common and frequently with a high budget, with several coming out every year. When was the last time a new Sasquatch or Yeti film was done? Is there a high-budget sasquatch blockbuster? Sasquatch films exist primarily in a period from about 1970 to 1980. There are very, very few films of this type outside of that period, which also coincides with the primary period of the sasquatch phenomenon. That is, the period where there was the most interest in the subject, the most "sightings" and, thus, the best opportunity to make a quick buck. Nearly all were done on the cheap, as part of the last agonizing gasps of the drive-in theater era.

If you really feel that strongly about it, I can remove it. But I need a good argument in favor. Hell. With very few exceptions, every film on that list could be removed for one reason or another. I question the inclusion of "Age 13" (1955). That film is borderline, in my opinion, at best. The primary reason why I chose to include it, is the fact that the filmmaker produced nearly nothing *but* exploitation films, and while Age 13 certainly has some minor exploitative aspects (very few, really), feelings as to it being exploitation or not are pretty well split. If, in fact, it is exploitation, it is certainly Sid Davis' least exploitative exploitation film.

And yes. I will concede that the criteria I came up with is a bit broad, but with so damn many subgenres, how can one *not* end up with broad or too narrow a standard? I did, at least, try to be somewhere in the middle, I feel. And anyways, so what of it? I'd rather be a bit broad than too narrow.

This post was modified by Elric_Dewisant on 2010-12-10 01:25:05

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DJason Date: Dec 9, 2010 3:57pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Exploitation Films: The Beta!!

SNOWBEAST is an exploitation movie in spirit, if not in fact.

Its storyline is derivative of JAWS (and pretty obviously so). JAWS was nothing more than a big-budget Roger Corman monster movie until the shark props failed to work, and Spielberg had to get creative during production. (I am paraphrasing Spielberg on this.)

And if Roger Corman monster movies aren't exploitation, really, what is?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 9, 2010 5:08pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Exploitation Films: The Beta!!

Oh yeah. And I haven't even gotten around to adding in the several Highway Safety movies that can be found on IA, like Signal 30 (1959), Mechanized Death (1961), Wheels of Tragedy (1960) and the like.

In all, I have another 30 or 40+ films that may or may not be on IA to track down and possibly add.

As I said, this list is in what I consider to be an alpha release.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bigdaddyrico85 Date: Dec 9, 2010 6:19pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Exploitation Films: The Beta!!

I think ou did a great job on the list. I'll sgree with every movie you listed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 9, 2010 6:35pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Exploitation Films: The Beta!!

Thank you!

Bookmark this thread, as I do plan on maintaining (when I can) it until IA gives it a collection designation of its own, like Silent Films, Sci-Fi/Horror and the rest.

This post was modified by Elric_Dewisant on 2010-12-10 02:35:06

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DJason Date: Dec 9, 2010 4:04pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Exploitation Films: The Beta!!

SNOWBEAST is an exploitation movie in spirit, if not in fact.

Its storyline is derivative of JAWS (and pretty obviously so). JAWS was nothing more than a big-budget Roger Corman monster movie until the shark props failed to work, and Spielberg had to get creative during production. (I am paraphrasing Spielberg on this.)

And if Roger Corman monster movies aren't exploitation, really, what is?